PeptideJournal
Research15 min read

Oral Peptide Delivery: Technology & Clinical Progress

For decades, the phrase "oral peptide" was treated as a contradiction. Peptides are proteins. The GI tract exists to digest proteins. Asking a peptide to survive that journey intact is like asking a snowflake to survive a furnace.

For decades, the phrase "oral peptide" was treated as a contradiction. Peptides are proteins. The GI tract exists to digest proteins. Asking a peptide to survive that journey intact is like asking a snowflake to survive a furnace.

And yet, here we are. Oral semaglutide (Rybelsus) has been on the market since 2019, treating type 2 diabetes with a once-daily pill. Orforglipron, an oral small-molecule GLP-1 agonist, posted strong Phase 3 results in 2025. Robotic pills that inject drugs directly through the stomach wall are moving from lab prototypes toward clinical testing. The field has shifted from "can it be done" to "how well can we do it."

This article breaks down the technologies driving that shift, the clinical data behind them, and what is still standing in the way.

Table of Contents

Why Oral Peptide Delivery Is So Difficult {#why-oral-peptide-delivery-is-so-difficult}

Before getting into solutions, it helps to understand exactly what the GI tract does to peptides. The barriers are layered, redundant, and effective.

Acid degradation. The stomach maintains a pH of 1-3 — acidic enough to denature most peptide structures within minutes. This is the first barrier, and it is harsh.

Enzymatic breakdown. Pepsin in the stomach starts the attack. In the small intestine, pancreatic secretions deliver trypsin, chymotrypsin, and elastase. Membrane-bound brush border enzymes at the intestinal wall add yet another layer of proteolytic activity. Together, these enzymes have evolved specifically to break peptide bonds (Frontiers in Nutrition, 2024).

Poor permeability. Most peptides weigh more than 1,000 Da and carry multiple charges. The "Rule of 500" in drug design holds that compounds above 500 Da show poor oral absorption. Peptides violate this rule by a factor of two or more. Their hydrophilicity prevents partitioning into the lipid membranes of intestinal epithelial cells, and tight junctions between cells block the paracellular route.

Mucus barrier. A continuously secreted mucus layer lines the intestine, trapping large molecules and preventing them from reaching the epithelial surface.

First-pass metabolism. Whatever fraction of a peptide makes it through the intestinal wall travels via the portal vein to the liver, where hepatic enzymes can degrade it further before it reaches systemic circulation.

The result: oral bioavailability for most unmodified peptides is below 1%. With rare exceptions like cyclosporine, whose unusual cyclic structure and lipophilicity give it natural resistance to these barriers, oral peptide delivery requires technological intervention (Nature Signal Transduction and Targeted Therapy, 2025).

Permeation Enhancers: The SNAC Breakthrough {#permeation-enhancers-the-snac-breakthrough}

Permeation enhancers (PEs) are substances that temporarily increase intestinal or gastric permeability, allowing peptides to cross epithelial barriers they normally cannot penetrate. Over 250 different PEs have been investigated in research, including surfactants, fatty acids, bile salts, and cell-penetrating peptides (PMC, 2025).

How SNAC Works

The most clinically successful PE to date is SNAC — sodium N-[8-(2-hydroxybenzoyl)amino] caprylate — developed by Emisphere Technologies and used in Novo Nordisk's oral semaglutide.

SNAC does several things at once (PMC, 2024):

  1. Raises local gastric pH around the tablet, protecting semaglutide from acid-mediated degradation
  2. Promotes monomerization of semaglutide, keeping individual molecules available for absorption
  3. Fluidizes lipid membranes in the gastric epithelium, increasing permeability for transcellular transport
  4. Acts locally — SNAC's effects are concentration-dependent and confined to the area immediately surrounding the tablet

Unlike other PEs, SNAC does not require an enteric coating (it works in the stomach, not the intestine) and has been designated GRAS (Generally Recognized As Safe) by the FDA. Importantly, SNAC promotes absorption of semaglutide specifically without broadly increasing permeability to other molecules — a safety feature that addresses concerns about "leaky gut" effects.

The 300 mg Sweet Spot

Clinical pharmacokinetic studies tested SNAC at 150 mg, 300 mg, and 600 mg alongside semaglutide. Semaglutide exposure was highest with 300 mg of SNAC. Going higher to 600 mg did not improve absorption — suggesting a saturable mechanism rather than a linear dose-response (Clinical Pharmacokinetics, 2019).

Emerging Combinations

Newer research has explored combining SNAC with C10 (sodium caprate), another well-studied permeation enhancer. In preclinical studies, lead formulations combining SNAC and C10 showed higher dose-corrected AUC values for GLP-1 analogues than either enhancer alone (ScienceDirect, 2024). This dual-enhancer approach could improve absorption for the next generation of oral peptides.

Oral Semaglutide: Clinical Evidence {#oral-semaglutide-clinical-evidence}

Oral semaglutide (Rybelsus) represents the clearest proof that oral peptide delivery can work in the real world.

Pharmacokinetics

The relative oral bioavailability of a 10 mg semaglutide tablet is approximately 0.9% compared to subcutaneous injection. Despite this low number, semaglutide's inherent potency and long half-life (approximately 153-160 hours after oral dosing, comparable to the 168-hour half-life of injectable semaglutide) make the formulation clinically viable (PMC, 2022).

Key pharmacokinetic findings from the development program:

ParameterOral SemaglutideSC Semaglutide
Approved doses3 mg, 7 mg, 14 mg daily0.25 mg, 0.5 mg, 1 mg weekly
Bioavailability (relative)~0.9%Reference
Half-life~153-160 hours~168 hours
Dose proportionalityLinear (20 mg vs. 40 mg)Linear
Absorption siteStomach (with SNAC)Subcutaneous tissue
Food effectSignificant (must fast)None

Once absorbed, semaglutide behaves identically regardless of whether it was injected or swallowed. The half-life is not determined by the route of administration — it is determined by the drug's albumin binding and structural stability.

The PIONEER Trials

Oral semaglutide was evaluated in the PIONEER Phase 3 program, which included multiple trials comparing it to placebo and active comparators in patients with type 2 diabetes.

Results showed that oral semaglutide:

  • Reduced HbA1c and body weight versus placebo and active comparators
  • Had a safety profile consistent with the GLP-1 receptor agonist class
  • Was well-tolerated, with GI side effects (nausea, diarrhea) being the most common adverse events

Dosing Constraints

The practical requirements for oral semaglutide are strict: take on an empty stomach with no more than 120 mL (about half a glass) of water, then wait at least 30 minutes before eating, drinking, or taking other medications. More water or shorter fasting periods measurably reduce semaglutide exposure. These restrictions exist because food and excess fluid dilute the SNAC concentration around the tablet, reducing its protective and absorption-enhancing effects.

For patients accustomed to simply swallowing a pill with breakfast, these requirements add friction. This is one reason why small-molecule alternatives have attracted so much interest.

Special Populations

Hepatic impairment (mild, moderate, or severe), upper GI disease (chronic gastritis, GERD), and renal impairment do not significantly alter oral semaglutide pharmacokinetics. The drug does not require dose adjustments in these populations. Among commonly used medications, only levothyroxine shows a clinically relevant interaction.

Small-Molecule GLP-1 Agonists: Bypassing the Peptide Problem {#small-molecule-glp-1-agonists}

Rather than engineering peptides to survive the GI tract, another approach is to abandon the peptide structure entirely and build small molecules that activate the same receptor.

Orforglipron (Eli Lilly)

Orforglipron is an oral, once-daily, non-peptide, small-molecule GLP-1 receptor agonist. It can be taken any time of day without food or water restrictions — a significant advantage over oral semaglutide.

The Phase 3 clinical program has delivered substantial results:

ATTAIN-1 (obesity without diabetes, published NEJM, September 2025): 3,127 patients randomized. Mean body weight reductions at 72 weeks: -7.5% (6 mg), -8.4% (12 mg), -11.2% (36 mg), compared to -2.1% with placebo. Among 36 mg recipients, 54.6% lost 10% or more of body weight, and 18.4% lost 20% or more (NEJM, 2025).

ATTAIN-2 (obesity with type 2 diabetes, published The Lancet, November 2025): Demonstrated statistically superior weight reduction compared to placebo across all doses (The Lancet, 2025).

ACHIEVE-1 (early type 2 diabetes, published NEJM, June 2025): Mean HbA1c reductions of -1.24 to -1.48 percentage points (vs. -0.41 for placebo) at 40 weeks. All doses brought mean HbA1c to 6.5-6.7% (NEJM, 2025).

ATTAIN-MAINTAIN: Demonstrated that orforglipron maintained weight loss in patients switching from injectable semaglutide (Wegovy) or tirzepatide (Zepbound).

Eli Lilly expects regulatory submissions for obesity treatment as early as next year, with type 2 diabetes submissions anticipated in 2026.

Danuglipron (Pfizer) — A Cautionary Tale

Pfizer's oral small-molecule GLP-1 agonist, danuglipron, showed meaningful efficacy (body weight reductions of 6.9-11.7% at 32 weeks in Phase 2b) but was discontinued in April 2025. The twice-daily dosing led to high GI side effect rates (up to 73% nausea) and greater than 50% discontinuation rates. A once-daily modified-release formulation was advancing, but a single case of potential drug-induced liver injury — combined with regulatory feedback — led Pfizer to end the program (Pfizer press release, 2025).

The danuglipron story illustrates that oral access alone is not enough. Tolerability, safety margins, and competitive positioning all determine whether a molecule succeeds.

Self-Emulsifying Drug Delivery Systems (SEDDS/SNEDDS) {#self-emulsifying-drug-delivery-systems}

SEDDS and SNEDDS are lipid-based formulations that spontaneously form nanoemulsions (oil-in-water droplets, typically below 25-200 nm) when they contact GI fluids. The lipophilic interior of these droplets protects peptides from enzymatic attack, since digestive enzymes cannot easily access the cargo inside (PubMed, 2015).

The Cyclosporine Precedent

The most successful commercial example is cyclosporine, marketed as Neoral. This cyclic peptide immunosuppressant is formulated as a microemulsion preconcentrate that improves intestinal permeability and inhibits p-glycoprotein efflux — a membrane pump that normally ejects absorbed peptides back into the gut lumen.

Recent Research

Several SEDDS/SNEDDS formulations for therapeutic peptides are under active investigation:

  • Insulin glargine: PEG-free SEDDS achieved oral bioavailability of 2.13% in preclinical studies — not high in absolute terms, but significantly better than PEG-based alternatives (1.15%) (PubMed, 2024)
  • Exendin-4 (GLP-1 analog): SNEDDS producing nanoemulsions below 25 nm released 73.8% of the peptide over 2 hours at pH 6.8, with no toxicity to Caco-2 intestinal cells
  • Heparin: Cyclodextrin-containing SNEDDS showed the highest cumulative uptake in cellular studies

Functional Excipients

Modern SEDDS formulations go beyond simple lipid encapsulation. They integrate:

  • pH modulators to create favorable local conditions
  • Enzyme inhibitors to block proteolytic degradation
  • Absorption enhancers to improve epithelial crossing
  • Cell-penetrating peptides to actively shuttle cargo through membranes
  • Mucoadhesive polymers to increase contact time with the intestinal wall

Nanoparticle and Lipid Carrier Platforms {#nanoparticle-and-lipid-carrier-platforms}

Beyond SEDDS, a broader class of nanoparticle systems is being developed for oral peptide delivery.

Solid Lipid Nanoparticles (SLNs) and Nanostructured Lipid Carriers (NLCs)

SLNs are made from solid lipids (triglycerides, fatty acids, steroids) stabilized by surfactants. They offer protection against GI degradation while improving intestinal uptake. NLCs, a second-generation version, use a mixture of solid and liquid lipids to achieve higher drug loading and better stability (PMC, 2024).

Polymer Nanoparticles

PLGA (poly lactic-co-glycolic acid), chitosan, and polycaprolactone-based nanoparticles can encapsulate peptides and release them in a controlled fashion. Chitosan-based systems are particularly interesting because chitosan carries a positive charge that promotes mucoadhesion and can temporarily open tight junctions between epithelial cells.

Cell-Penetrating Peptide Functionalization

Coating nanoparticles with cell-penetrating peptides (CPPs) — short, positively charged sequences that cross cell membranes — has shown promising results. CPP-functionalized liposomes carrying vancomycin showed substantially increased oral bioavailability in rat studies compared to unfunctionalized liposomes.

The Manufacturing Challenge

A recurring theme in nanoparticle delivery is the gap between laboratory results and commercial production. Batch-to-batch variability, stability during storage, and the unpredictable effects of patient-to-patient differences (diet, gut microbiome, disease state) make clinical translation difficult. As one 2025 review noted, three factors determine whether these systems succeed: scalability of complex formulations, long-term safety of permeation enhancers on intestinal integrity, and the persistent challenge of achieving more than 1% oral bioavailability.

Ingestible Devices: SOMA, LUMI, and Robotic Pills {#ingestible-devices}

Perhaps the most inventive approach to oral peptide delivery comes from the world of medical devices — swallowable capsules that physically inject drugs into the GI wall.

SOMA (Self-Orienting Millimeter-Scale Applicator)

Developed at MIT and licensed exclusively to Novo Nordisk, the SOMA is a capsule about the size of a blueberry. Its shape, inspired by the leopard tortoise's self-righting shell, causes it to automatically orient itself with its tip pressing against the stomach lining. It then deploys a millimeter-scale post made of compressed active drug directly into the gastric mucosa (Science, 2019).

In pig studies, SOMA delivered insulin at plasma levels comparable to subcutaneous injection. The needle penetrates the stomach wall but avoids perforation.

LUMI (Luminal Unfolding Microneedle Injector)

LUMI takes a different approach. When it reaches the small intestine (triggered by the rise in pH above 5.5), the capsule ruptures and a spring-loaded mechanism releases folding arms studded with dissolving microneedles into the intestinal wall.

L-SOMA (Liquid SOMA)

The next-generation L-SOMA addressed a key limitation of the original SOMA: low drug capacity (300-700 micrograms). L-SOMA can hold up to 4 mg of liquid drug — including insulin, GLP-1 analogs, adalimumab, and epinephrine — and uses a retractable needle to inject it into the gastric submucosa (PMC, 2022).

In pig studies, L-SOMA delivered medications at levels comparable to subcutaneous injection across all four tested drugs.

RaniPill

Rani Therapeutics' RaniPill is the first ingestible injection device to demonstrate safety and effectiveness in human studies. It uses sucrose-based microneedles activated by an osmotic self-inflating balloon. The first-in-human study with octreotide demonstrated bioavailability rivaling subcutaneous injection — a major milestone for the platform (PMC, 2021).

Current Limitations

These devices are impressive, but practical challenges remain:

ChallengeDetails
Drug loadingMost devices hold 0.3-4 mg per capsule
BioavailabilitySOMA/LUMI: ~10% or less; RaniPill and L-SOMA: higher
ManufacturingComplex multi-component assembly
Patient variabilityEffects of anatomy, diet, and disease on device function unknown
CostExpected to be substantially higher than conventional tablets

Enzyme Inhibitors and pH Modulation {#enzyme-inhibitors-and-ph-modulation}

Rather than physically shielding peptides, another strategy is to chemically disable the enzymes that destroy them.

Protease Inhibitors

Co-formulating peptides with protease inhibitors — compounds that block trypsin, chymotrypsin, pepsin, or brush border enzymes — can reduce degradation in the GI tract. Common research candidates include aprotinin, bowman-birk inhibitor, and synthetic serine protease inhibitors.

The challenge is specificity. Broadly inhibiting digestive enzymes can interfere with normal protein digestion and may cause GI side effects with chronic use.

pH Modulation

Adjusting local pH can protect peptides from acid degradation (in the stomach) or create conditions unfavorable for enzyme activity. SNAC's mechanism includes a local pH-raising effect. Enteric coatings that dissolve only at intestinal pH (above 5.5) can protect acid-sensitive peptides during gastric transit.

Combination Approaches

The most promising formulations combine multiple strategies — a SEDDS carrier for lipid protection, an enzyme inhibitor to block proteolysis, a permeation enhancer to improve epithelial crossing, and a mucoadhesive polymer to increase contact time. This "kitchen sink" approach reflects the reality that no single technology overcomes all the barriers.

Clinical Pipeline: What Is in Trials Now {#clinical-pipeline}

The oral peptide field is generating significant clinical activity. During 2023-2024 alone, over 200 clinical trials involving peptide-based therapeutics were conducted.

Active Programs

ProgramCompanyTypeStatusNotes
Oral semaglutide (higher doses)Novo NordiskPeptide + SNACMarketed / expandingHigher-dose formulations in development
OrforglipronEli LillySmall molecule (non-peptide)Phase 3 completeRegulatory filing expected 2026
SOMA platformNovo Nordisk / MITIngestible devicePreclinical / early clinicalLicensed for all therapy areas
RaniPillRani TherapeuticsIngestible devicePhase 1 (human data)Demonstrated octreotide delivery
Oral insulin (various)MultiplePeptide + various carriersPhase 1-2Multiple approaches under study

Industry Investment

The oral proteins and peptides market is projected to grow at a 16.3% compound annual growth rate through 2034, reflecting both investor confidence and pharmaceutical industry commitment. Notable partnerships include CordenPharma's March 2025 collaboration with Viking Therapeutics to integrate GLP-1 peptide supply across injectable and oral formulations, and Bristol Myers Squibb's December 2024 partnership with AI Proteins for AI-powered therapeutic miniprotein discovery.

The Role of AI

Computational approaches are accelerating development. AI-driven predictive modeling for chromatographic optimization and spectral pattern recognition could reduce analytical method development timelines by 30-50%. Physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) simulations are helping researchers predict how formulations will perform across patient populations before running expensive clinical trials.

FAQ {#faq}

How does oral semaglutide compare to injectable semaglutide?

Once absorbed, semaglutide is the same molecule regardless of how it got into the body. The half-life, mechanism of action, and receptor binding are identical. The main differences are practical: the oral dose is much higher (up to 14 mg daily vs. 0.25-1 mg weekly by injection), there are strict fasting requirements, and clinical trials have generally shown slightly smaller reductions in HbA1c and body weight with oral versus injectable semaglutide — likely reflecting the variable absorption inherent in oral delivery.

Will orforglipron replace injectable GLP-1 drugs?

Not entirely. Orforglipron offers a genuinely oral GLP-1 agonist without food restrictions, but its weight-loss efficacy in ATTAIN-1 (up to 11.2% at 72 weeks) appears somewhat lower than injectable semaglutide 2.4 mg or tirzepatide. It may become a first-line option for patients who refuse injections or as a maintenance therapy after initial injectable treatment — as the ATTAIN-MAINTAIN trial explored.

Are robotic pills safe? What happens if they malfunction inside the body?

Early human studies of the RaniPill showed no serious safety events. SOMA and L-SOMA have been tested extensively in pig models without perforation or significant tissue damage. These devices are designed with safety margins — the needles are short enough to penetrate the mucosa without reaching the deeper muscular layer of the GI wall. That said, larger clinical trials across diverse patient populations (varying in age, weight, anatomy, and disease status) are still needed.

Can peptides used for stacking be delivered orally?

Research peptides like BPC-157 face the same oral bioavailability barriers as any therapeutic peptide — typically below 1-2% without enhancement technology. Peptides used in combination protocols (CJC-1295, Ipamorelin, Sermorelin) are currently administered by injection precisely because oral delivery does not provide reliable systemic levels. Oral formulations for these peptides remain a research goal, not a clinical reality.

How close are we to insulin pills?

Oral insulin has been a research target for over 80 years. Despite hundreds of studies using nanoparticles, SEDDS, permeation enhancers, and ingestible devices, no oral insulin product has been approved. The highest oral bioavailability reported in published clinical studies remains in the low single digits. Ingestible devices like SOMA and RaniPill show the most promise for achieving injection-like bioavailability, but they are still in early development.

The Bottom Line {#the-bottom-line}

Oral peptide delivery has progressed from theoretical impossibility to commercial reality in less than a decade. Oral semaglutide proved the concept. Orforglipron demonstrated that non-peptide small molecules can activate peptide receptors without any of the absorption headaches. SOMA, RaniPill, and related ingestible devices are pushing toward injection-equivalent bioavailability in a swallowable capsule.

But the field is not yet where it needs to be. Even the best permeation enhancer technology delivers less than 1% of the peptide dose to the bloodstream. Nanoparticle systems show promise in animals but struggle to translate to humans. Ingestible devices work but are complex and expensive. And the strict dosing conditions for oral semaglutide — empty stomach, limited water, 30-minute wait — highlight how fragile these absorption gains are.

The most likely near-term outcome is a split market: small-molecule mimics like orforglipron for targets where non-peptide agonists can be designed, and advanced delivery technologies for peptides that cannot be replaced by small molecules. The therapeutic areas most likely to benefit first are diabetes management and obesity, where GLP-1 biology is well validated and the patient population — numbering in the hundreds of millions — justifies massive R&D investment.

For patients and clinicians, the practical takeaway is this: oral peptide options are expanding, but most peptide therapies still require injection for reliable delivery. That is changing — just not as fast as anyone would like.

References {#references}

  1. Drucker, D.J. "A new era for oral peptides: SNAC and the development of oral semaglutide for the treatment of type 2 diabetes." Therapeutic Advances in Endocrinology and Metabolism, 13 (2022). https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9515042/

  2. Abramson, A., et al. "An ingestible self-orienting system for oral delivery of macromolecules." Science, 363(6427), 611-615 (2019). https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aau2277

  3. Abramson, A., et al. "Oral delivery of systemic monoclonal antibodies, peptides and small molecules using gastric auto-injectors." Nature Biotechnology, 40, 103-109 (2022). https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8766875/

  4. Fonseca, V.A., et al. "Orforglipron, an Oral Small-Molecule GLP-1 Receptor Agonist for Obesity Treatment." New England Journal of Medicine (2025). https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2511774

  5. Abdelkader, H., et al. "Barriers and Strategies for Oral Peptide and Protein Therapeutics Delivery: Update on Clinical Advances." Pharmaceutics, 17(4), 397 (2025). https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12030352/

  6. Brayden, D.J., et al. "Current Understanding of SNAC as an Absorption Enhancer: The Oral Semaglutide Experience." Molecular Pharmaceutics, 21(1), 1-14 (2024). https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10788673/

  7. Rani Therapeutics. "A robotic pill for oral delivery of biotherapeutics: safety, tolerability, and performance in healthy subjects." Drug Delivery and Translational Research, 12, 294-305 (2021). https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8677648/

  8. Li, J., et al. "Advance in peptide-based drug development: delivery platforms, therapeutics and vaccines." Signal Transduction and Targeted Therapy, 10, 74 (2025). https://www.nature.com/articles/s41392-024-02107-5